N. Korea Warns of 'Merciless' Nuclear Offensive

Yes but we're not rogue states nor international pariahs.

You believe in Democracy?

Well the US and UK are open to the charge of being rogue states because of their actions over Iraq.
The fact that most other nations found it expedient to later overlook this doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I don't know what my belief in democracy has to do with it, either way.
 
I never claimed they were, at least now that GWB and the neocons are no longer in office:

I'm sorry, you didn't understand my point: If they're not in power, it doesn't matter what their opinion is. Using Poster X's statement on Forum Y as a rebuttal to Bast's statement that no one wants to wipe them out, is silly imo, because they're not a credible threat.

I also believe it is fallacious to believe people want to "wipe them off the face of the planet" just because they're a totalitarian regime. That's as erroneous as your claiming I wanted to do the same to Saudi Arabia just because I believe their treatment of women is wrong.

We tolerate evil in the world every day on nearly every street corner without really wanting to eradicate it. Some would say we need a little evil in the world to counter-balance the good. :p
 
I'm sorry, you didn't understand my point: If they're not in power, it doesn't matter what their opinion is. Using Poster X's statement on Forum Y as a rebuttal to Bast's statement that no one wants to wipe them out, is silly imo, because they're not a credible threat.

So you are assuming Bast was referring to governments instead of people in this forum? That makes no sense based on my previous comment which she was clearly addressing.

I'm I also believe it is fallacious to believe people want to "wipe them off the face of the planet" just because they're a totalitarian regime. That's as erroneous as your claiming I wanted to do the same to Saudi Arabia just because I believe their treatment of women is wrong.

There are indeed a number of people in this forum who have claimed just that about the Saudis, or just about any other country that wasn't democratic. Do you deny it?

We tolerate evil in the world every day on nearly every street corner without really wanting to eradicate it. Some would say we need a little evil in the world to counter-balance the good. :p

Exactly. However, that is clearly not the position of much the far-right who do indeed want to use the might of the US to eradicate all 'evil' - well at least supposed enemies to the US, which was my point. Do you disagree with that assessment or not?
 
Well the US and UK are open to the charge of being rogue states because of their actions over Iraq.
The fact that most other nations found it expedient to later overlook this doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I don't know what my belief in democracy has to do with it, either way.

If someone attacks a rogue state, then there is no justice in punishing them (IMO). I support governments getting tough on those countries that are a threat to the civilised world *cough* Korea *cough*
 
South Korea is definitely first target. It's a no brainer. :sad:

Curious what NK's spite target would be, knowing they'd become radioactive dust in the aftermath. One final spit in the eye of your oppressor? Beat up your kind of near neighbor? Bully your next door neighbor and hope no one reacts?
 
So you are assuming Bast was referring to governments instead of people in this forum? That makes no sense based on my previous comment which she was clearly addressing.

Either way, what I said is the way it is.

There are indeed a number of people in this forum who have claimed just that about the Saudis, or just about any other country that wasn't democratic. Do you deny it?

It's not that I deny it; it's that I don't care. :lol:

They're in no position to do anything. Even if they were, I highly doubt they would actually try. I wish I had $30,000.00 but that doesn't mean I'll actually go knock off a crack dealer, even though it's within my capability.

Exactly. However, that is clearly not the position of much the far-right who do indeed want to use the might of the US to eradicate all 'evil' - well at least supposed enemies to the US, which was my point. Do you disagree with that assessment or not?

If there are any politicians openly advocating that, I don't know about them. Unless you were referring to the Armchair Generals here, in which case what they believe doesn't really matter.
 
Unless you were referring to the Armchair Generals here, in which case what they believe doesn't really matter.

Well, yes, that was indeed to whom I was referring as my statement clearly shows...
 
I never claimed they were, at least now that GWB and the neocons are no longer in office:
I don't see what the downside is to rubbing out the Kim dynasty and the other upper ranks of the North Korean junta.

But I think we are now paying for that legacy of posturing for years against the so-called "Axis of Evil." As usual, it's all about blowback.
Damn Truman and his containment policy! :mischief:
 
I don't see what the downside is to rubbing out the Kim dynasty and the other upper ranks of the North Korean junta.

I know. That was my point.

Damn Truman and his containment policy! :mischief:

Good point. Truman was largely responsible for the great Commie / Cold War scare that some people are still not over. But what do you expect from a war criminal who deliberately dropped two A-bombs on Japan after they had already been defeated, not to mention the fire bombing of Tokyo and other population centers, which caused civilian deaths far greater than the total US military killed throughout the entire war?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0310-08.htm
 
Besides the fact thousand if not more innocent people would die. I bet you didn't see the downside to rubbing out Saddam Hussein either.
I'm talking about as a matter of principle.

Good point. Truman was largely responsible for the great Commie / Cold War scare that some people are still not over. But what do you expect from a war criminal who deliberately dropped two A-bombs on Japan after they had already been defeated, not to mention the fire bombing of Tokyo and other population centers, which caused civilian deaths far greater than the total US military killed throughout the entire war?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0310-08.htm
That, mi amigo, is the nature of war. I didn't like the fact that we dropped the bombs, nor did I like the fact that we were involved in the war at all. I also don't like the fact that we intervened in World War I, causing all of this mess in the first place. But, we did what was necessary after we'd already gotten involved.
 
I also don't like the fact that we intervened in World War I, causing all of this mess in the first place.
I'm reasonably certain that the American intervention in the First World War's primary result was giving Wilson a seat at the peace talks, not anything involving our Japanese rivalry.
 
...I didn't like the fact that we dropped the bombs... But, we did what was necessary after we'd already gotten involved.

That's where we disagree. Not only do I think it was unnecessary, so do almost all the US military leaders at the time.

http://hnn.us/comments/7362.html

Spoiler :
Most of the top US brass were against use of the bomb and did not regard it as militarily necessary (See quotes below). Truman and Byrnes delayed the end of the war and cost American and Asian lives by deliberately refusing to clarify the surrender terms, by deliberately stalling Sino-Soviet talks, by deliberately postponing the Potsdam conference, and by deliberately ignoring the many Japanese peace feelers.





Quotes by US military leaders WWII.

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.....My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted the ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
Admiral William D. Leahy. 5-star admiral, president of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combined American-British Chiefs of Staff, and chief of staff to the commander-in-chief of the army and navy from 1942 - 1945 (Roosevelt) and 1945 - 1949 (Truman).

"...I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life......We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything."
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, quoted by his widow.

"Nimitz considered the atomic bomb somehow indecent, certainly not a legitimate form of warfare."
E. B. Potter, naval historian.

"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment......It was a mistake ever to drop it......(the scientists) had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it......It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before."
Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet.

"Especially it is good to see the truth told about the last days of the war with Japan.....I was with the Fleet during that period; and every officer in the Fleet knew that Japan would eventually capitulate from...the tight blockade. "I, too, felt strongly that it was a mistake to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning."
Rear Admiral Richard Byrd.

(The atomic bomb) "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion.....it was clear to a number of people...that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate.....it was a sin - to use a good word - (a word that) should be used more often - to kill non-combatants...."
Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy.

"The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb........the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
Major General Curtis E. LeMay, US Army Air Forces (at a press conference, September 1945).

"Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped..."
Major General Claire Chennault, founder of the Flying Tigers, and former US Army Air Forces commander in China.

"....from the Japanese standpoint the atomic bomb was really a way out. The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell..."
Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces.

"Arnold's view was that it (dropping the atomic bomb) was unnecessary. He said that he knew that the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel it was the military's job to question it...........I knew nobody in the high echelons of the Army Air Force who had any question about having to invade Japan."
Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker, Arnold's deputy.

"When the question comes up of whether we use the atomic bomb or not, my view is the the Air Force will not oppose the use of the bomb, and they will deliver it effectively in the Commander in Chief decide to use it. But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion."
Arnold, quoted by Eaker.

"No! I think we had the Japs licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit."
General George C. Kenney, commander of Army Air Force units in the Southwest Pacific, when asked whether using the atomic bomb had been a wise decision.

"...Both felt Japan would surrender without use of the bomb, and neither knew why a second bomb was used."
W. Averall Harriman, in private notes after a dinner with General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz (commander in July 1945 of the Pacific-based US Army Strategic Air Forces, and Spaatz's one-time deputy commanding general in Europe, Frederick L. Anderson.

"I voiced to him (Secretary of War Stimpson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'........It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing"
General Dwight D. Eisenhower.

"I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry od Russia into Manchuria."
Herbert Hoover.

"MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it....He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be to limit damage to noncombatants.... MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off, which I think speaks well of him."
Richard M. Nixon.

"...he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it did later anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, from an interview with MacArthur.

You have to really ask yourself what could he have possibly been thinking when nearly all the people he should have seeked advice before doing so vehemently disagreed with him. One popular theory was that it was actually done as a demonstration to the Soviet Union that they might be next.
 
I think given the likelihood of massive casulties attacking Japan, and imagining that they would probably not surrender (they never do) I think it came down to whether the US valued Japan's people or its soldiers more, and they thought that saving their own lives came before anything else, which if nothing else is symptomatic of a good attitude towards your soldiers. I wouldn't approve of a government who had that sort of option and threw the army into a bloodbath.
 
Top Bottom